Reply
Thu 1 Oct, 2015 05:30 pm
Misogyny is still embraced and practiced by red-blooded males in different ways and degrees all over the world but given a particular brand of nuanced refinement in the good ole USA, in my humble opinion.
I was listening to the Thom Hartmann Radio Program today, and a woman that had a midwest-ish accent and I guess was in her 50's or 60's called in. she strongly expressed the opinion that the United States may still have its racist problems, but that it suffered far more severely from misogyny. She was saying that she thought the GOP was praying for Hillary to be the candidate for the Democrats, because they knew that their electorate would rise up on their woman-hating haunches in untold numbers to crush her.
This was honestly a thought that had not occurred to me, but something about it felt true.
I mean, think about it: Just a partial list of the Nations who have long since had a Female Chief of State looks like this:
Mongolia, China, Argentina, Bolivia, Iceland, San Marino, Malta, Haiti, Switzerland, Philippines, East Germany, Nicaragua, Ireland, Burundi, Sri Lanka, Liberia, Ecuador, Guyana, Latvia, Panama, Finland, Indonesia, Georgia, Austria...and the list does go on, but you get the idea.
It took until 1920 for this nation to even make it legal for women to vote.
The thought that we might just not be ready for a woman POTUS didn't really cross my mind - in large part I'm sure because my expectations and estimations re what we are capable of as a nation was changed when we elected that guy in the office now - twice.
But I think that lady on the radio today may have been on to something. I think there is a lot of unresolved insecurity and misunderstanding and plain old fear and hate that poisons a lot of men's perceptions of, and interactions with women.
I think more men are bothered by having a woman boss or relating to a woman with more power or money than would ever admit it.
I think it's very very possible that the misogyny that has kept women from elevating to a position of equality in every category in the US could very well be a bigger factor in the thwarting of Clinton than I had considered.
What say you, sage A2K'ers?
Hmmm, I wonder if people are not responding because they, like I was doing, don't think it's even a possibility that we just won't put no wimmin folk in the white house because we're that backwards about wimmin's roles.
@snood,
Huh? doncha know I'm in the kitchen making banana nut muffins?
I've not huge number of bosses in my life. Of those, most were men, which made sense at the time re who was interested in what fields of endeavor, but there were a few women and I thought they were good at it, generally liked working for them. I had to think about it though since I'm not all keen on Hilary Clinton, despite that I may be voting for her. But, I have known several sharp women in politics, women who were quite good at it, and plenty of men voted for them.
Adds, they were democrats though, and maybe the voters were mostly democrats. Maybe more republican men and women are more female wary, but I've no idea if that is true... it might not be. One of the women I'm talking about had formerly been a republican, changed to demo for social issue reasons, and was liked by both sides of the aisle while in office. That was a while ago now.
@ossobuco,
I need to organize my thoughts, but I definitely want in on this thread
@snood,
It seems odd to me that the US hasn't had a female president yet. Canada even had one for a while.
I can't figure out what makes the US so very different from Canada and Australia in some ways (gun control, medicare, racism etc). You'd think we'd be more alike coming from very similar origins.
The political systems are obviously quite different but what's notable (to me, right now, as we're in the middle of a federal election) is the old white maleness of American politicians.
@ehBeth,
hunh
just answered one of my own questions in that post
I know I seem to harp on the age of American politicians but I've just realized that it's the piece Americans haven't caught up with yet.
They see that there's a need for more people of colour to be represented (whether or not it's happening). They see the country's behind re gender representation in politics (still an issue here, but it's on the fiddly points now). They don't see the age of their politicians ... because they're used to the old white guys ... it's part of the whole picture.
somewhat apropos
this just came up on my FB feed
@snood,
Sorry the times are a changing an right now far more 4 years degrees are being awarded to women then men and in my adult life time the idea of ending up with a black president was a subject of fiction such as the 1964 novel "The Man".
No reason that we would not be willing to elected a woman as president.
I knew we were ready for a black president, and I was right.
We're definitely ready for a female president, but a woman of substance hasn't applied. Elizabeth Warren would be the one to beat if she'd thrown her hat in.
Nixon, Ronald Raygun, Bush 1, Bush 2. As far as I am concerned even if she is a lier she would fit right in with these guys. I'd vote for her in a minute before any republican running at this time. But you all know I am going to vote democrat no matter who they run to make sure we dont have any more republican Supreme Court judges to pervert the constitution.
I'm surprised and just a bit disappointed that there isn't more discussion here.
I think it's a pretty weighty and relevant question. Maybe that's just because I was recently given a reason to rethink what I had taken for granted about the prospects of electing a woman president.
@snood,
Quote:and a woman that had a midwest-ish accent and I guess was in her 50's or 60's called in. she strongly expressed the opinion that the United States may still have its racist problems, but that it suffered far more severely from misogyny.
First of all, let me say that this is ridiculous. In every measure of inequality, pay rates, incarceration rates, victimization rates of violent crimes... you name it... race is a far more important factor than gender. There has never been a time in American history where White women were worse off than Black men in terms of economic power, political rights, negative social stereotypes or in civil rights.
Secondly the two female candidates running in this present election cycle are not very good candidates.
Hillary's gender isn't hurting her. A male candidate with Hillary Clinton's mediocre record on issues from Iraq and gay marriage, and her self-inflicted problem of being seen as untrustworthy, would have zero chance of being elected and would be close to the end of his campaign by now. She is leading the polls because she is a woman.
Electing a poor candidate because of her gender is not a solution to the problem.
If this is truly a thread about having a woman president, then Carly Fiorina, who is running and is woman, should be part of this discussion the same as Hillary.
It seems like Hillary is monopolizing the tags. If you are reading this, please add a "Carly Fiorina" tag up there so it will be fair (I already have).
@maxdancona,
I'm reading and I don't like either of them, Fiorina less. Are you instructing me how to post?
@snood,
What is is, three hours since you posted? People have lives.
@ossobuco,
I am not instructing you... I am politely requesting that you add a "Carly Fiorina" tag to balance out the thread.
The title of this thread says "...Woman President". Carly Fiorina is one of the women running for president.
@maxdancona,
Why are you trying to direct traffic and insist people obey you? You seem to take women as some conglomerate.
@ossobuco,
When did I insist that anyone obey me? I made a polite request (to all readers regardless of gender) And if I did... where did I single out women?
You are taking a cheap shot Osso.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace